[Micha, commenting on RML:]
>> One solution to these problems can come from considering the
>> personality of Lot's father - Haran. As Rashi brings at the end of
>> Noach, Haran was a follower; he said "if Nimrod wins I am with him
>> but if Avram wins I go with him". Like fathers, like sons.
> (That last comment is an odd thing to add to a paragraph discussing
> Terach's children.)
I did not mean for these comments to refer to Avram; however, upon
farther reflection it is clear that there was some connection between
Terach and Avram. Surely, there is significance for Avram to have come
through the Semitic line; otherwise he could have arisen from anyone
else. If you think of this as process of narrowing the bechirah (see
Seforno's introduction to his peirush), you can say nothing else. Note
how daughters of rejected lineage, Rivka, Rachel/Lea, Ruth, Naama find
their way back in.
Terach began the process of traveling to E'Y.
The Brisker Rav al Hatorah proves that Terach is considered to be one
of our Avos form the end of Yehoshua, also quoted in Hagada. M'tchila
ovdei avoda zora hayu avosainu, Terach avi Avraham.
Avraham is called "techila L'geirim". His process of conversion (Kabolas
Ol Mitvos) spanned decades and culminated in Bris Milah. There does not
appear to have been a sharp one-time break.
M.Levin

On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 10:20:23AM -0500, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: The Brisker Rav al Hatorah proves that Terach is considered to be one
: of our Avos form the end of Yehoshua, also quoted in Hagada. M'tchila
: ovdei avoda zora hayu avosainu, Terach avi Avraham.
And yet this doesn't necessarily imply a shevach about Terach. After all,
according to Rav, this is the maschilim begenai of the haggadah. (In
Rav's haggadah, the genai and the shevach are spiritual. In Shemu'el's,
the genai is "Avadim hayinu", and the haggadah is more about the physical
ge'ulah. There is a parallel in how each views the messianic ge'ulah.
Which is why it's Shemu'el who says 'ein bein ... ela shib'ud malchiyos
bilvad'.)
OTOH, the Bardivitcher, kedarko beqodesh, finds a shevach. Our ancestors
may have been chot'im, but they were SPIRITUAL chot'im. Terach was a
religious leader of note. He had the thirst, but didn't choose the right
well.
-mi
--
Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905

> An interesting point: We are allowed to wear a beged with tzitzit into
> the bathroom. The stated purpose of tzitzit is "u'rietem o'to
> u'zchartem et kol mitzvot..." - isn't that (u'zchartem et kol mitzvot)
> assur in the given situation?
You're making it sound like just seeing tzitzit automatically makes
someone think about the mitzvot. Halevai! I suppose if someone was on
such a madreiga that seeing tzitzit immediately reminded them of mitzvot
then he probably should refrain from looking at them in the bathroom. But
for most people that I know, who see tzitzit all the time, and it doesn't
naturally cause them to focus on mitzvot, I don't see why wearing tzitzit
in the bathroom would at all be problematic.
Avi Burstein

When Micha Berger writes:
"Perhaps this is why Hillel formulated his rule (Mah desani lakh...) in
the negative, making his morality about the avoidance of suffering. As
opposed to the Notzri Golden Rule."
He states a common misconception exacerbated by people like Trude
Weis-Rosmarin, whom In suspect knew better, (I thank Reb Micha for
giving me the intro to my talk on Dec 25 at an MO shul in Toronto--
sponsored by the staff of "Jews for Judaism" inyana deyoma-- Jewish
misconceptions of Christianity).
A Christian work (sometimes called jewish-christian) known as Didache
presents Chrisitian doctrine. Christianity also has the negative
formulation but so do eastern religions and everyone else in antiquity.
So here is a quote from Didache chapter 2 that has both postive and
negative-
First, "And you shall love God, your creator. Second, [And you shall
love] your neighbor as yourself. And whatever is distasteful to you,
do not do to another.-- The meaning of these teachings is: Do not kill,
do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, do not fornicate,
do not steal, do not covet that which belongs to your neighbor.
And if anyone knows German, I recommend a very full study of how
widespread the positive and negative formulations were in antiquity:
Leonidas, J. P., Die goldene Regel religiongeschichtlicht untersucht,
Leipzig, 1929.
Zvi Basser

RCM
>The Rambam paskens that l'chatchilah the sakkin used for shechitas
>korbonos should be a kli shareis but b'dieved if one doesn't use a kli
>shareis it is okay.
Maase Korbanos ch 4 law 7
RCM
>Elsewhere the Rambam paskens that by keilim we say "avadosan m'chanchasan".
>If this is true, how do you ever have a case of b'dieved not haveing
>a kli shareis. Once I do the avodah with the knife it automatically
>becomes a kli shareis.
See Radbaz there that shechita is not avoda. See Mikdash Dovid 2:2 for
a discussion of this issue, machlokes Rishonim, etc..
Shlomo Goldstein

> The Rambam paskens that l'chatchilah the sakkin used for shechitas
> korbonos should be a kli shareis but b'dieved if one doesn't use a kli
> shareis it is okay.
> Elsewhere the Rambam paskens that by keilim we say "avadosan m'chanchasan".
> If this is true, how do you ever have a case of b'dieved not haveing
> a kli shareis. Once I do the avodah with the knife it automatically
> becomes a kli shareis.
The glib answer is sh'chitah lav avodah hi. The real answer is that
only an avodah which requires a kli shares is m'chanech the kli which
is used for it. Since sh'chitah does not need a kli shares, it is not
m'kadesh the kli chol that was used.
EMT

Elazar M Teitz wrote:
> The glib answer is sh'chitah lav avodah hi. The real answer is
>that only an avodah which requires a kli shares is m'chanech the kli
>which is used for it. Since sh'chitah does not need a kli shares, it is
>not m'kadesh the kli chol that was used.
Both these teirutzim don't work. First of all, the Rambam holds that
l'chatchilah the sakin should be a kli shareis. Clearly it became a kli
shareis despite the fact that shechita lav avodah.
Also, there is an interesting Ritva in Yoma (39) who says that even if
the only usage of a kli isn't considered an avodah, since it is the only
way to use that item then that usage makes the kli into a kli shareis.

<R. Y.B.Soloveitchik explained that Jews are the only nation in existence;
all others are referred to as "mishpachos ho'adoma".>
Assuming the quote is accurate and complete, how are we to understand
"Avad'ta am K'mosh," "Am va'am kilshono," "el am asher lo yadata,"
"Vaavdil eschem min ha'amim," "v'ra'u kol amei haaretz" and so many more?
As for umah, Chazal certainly used it not only for Jews, but also for
the umos ha'olam.
EMT

Assuming the quote is accurate and complete, how are we to understand
"Avad'ta am K'mosh," "Am va'am kilshono," "el am asher lo yadata,"
"Vaavdil eschem min ha'amim," "v'ra'u kol amei haaretz" and so many more?
As for umah, Chazal certainly used it not only for Jews, but also for
the umos ha'olam.
I heard it from someone who heard it form the Rav. A similar idea was
posted here in the name of another one of his students, R. H. Shechter,
so it is probably correctly attribute and form the same source.As far as
use of "am" in Tanach, it is used to draw attention to a common religion
of a group of people, "bderech hashituf" with bnei yisrael but not in
a Halachic sense.
BTW, occasional use of am as foreigner (l'um nachri") confirms this point.
M. Levin

>>> How many names of wives of Tanaim or Amoraim can you name (off the top
>>> of your head, no encyclopedias, CD's etc.)?
> Rachel, R' Akiva's wife; and Bruriah, R' Meir's wife. That's all!
I'd forgotten about Rachel, but still came up with a list of two:
Bruriah and Martha (the wife of R Nachman?)

<<BTW do other kehilos do as we do - and in the minyan of the Mohel say
'Anim Zemiros'?>>
In the Adass Yisroel shul in Melbourne, Australia, anim zemiros is recited
on the day of a bris in the "official" shacharis minyan, even if the
baalei simcha are not present. This shul officially follows Oberlander
minhagim, although it has become more chassidish in recent years.
I have been told that Golders Green Beth HaMidrash Congregation in London
(affectionately known as "Munk's", even though Rav Munk ceased to be the
Rav in the 60s) also has a custom of reciting anim zemiros at shacharis
when a bris will be held following shacharis.
Kol tuv,
Dov Kay
Russell Kennedy
Member of the Kennedy Strang Legal Group
Levels 10 & 11, 469 La Trobe Street
Melbourne Victoria 3000 Australia
Tel 61 3 9609 1555 Fax 61 3 9609 1600
Visit our website at www.rk.com.au
If this email has an attachment in PDF format, and if you do not have access to Adobe Acrobat Reader, it may be downloaded at no charge from the Adobe
web site at www.adobe.com.
This email and any files transmitted with it are privileged and confidential and are intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient or responsible for delivering this email to the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying
of this email and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete it immediately from your system
and notify us by email at "info@rk.com.au".
Any views expressed in this email and any files transmitted with it are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states
them to be the views of Russell Kennedy.
Russell Kennedy does not represent or warrant that the attached files are free from computer viruses or other defects. The user assumes all
responsibility for any loss or damage resulting directly or indirectly from the use of the attached files.

<When Rav Aaron Kotler saw that Torah might not succeed in the
hinterlands, he was maskim to having mixed classes in Day Schools in
order to promote Torah in locales that otherwise might not have been able
to feasibly run a day school {how's that for a long run-on sentence?!}
IOW, he overlooked the Halachic objections because of eis la'asos.>
This is a not-quite-accurate depiction of what happened. In circa 1952,
R. Aharon proposed, at a Torah Umesorah convention, that all schools
be gender-segregated from kindergarten. My father z"l (who had begun
his day school three years before TU was founded) arose to oppose the
proposal. He said that if it passed, he would of course not go against
the da'as rabim, but would instead close the school, since there was no
way it could survive with a doubling of its operating and capital costs
and no increase in its income.
However, he said, he wanted to know R. Aharon's basis for the issur. The
only one he could see was a geder of tznius. There is, though, a stam
mishna in Kiddushin, paskened by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch
lahalachah, that an unmarried man may not teach, nor may a woman,
married or not. He therefore asked why we don't require that schools
discharge all their female teachers. The obvious answer was that it
represented an instance of "eis la'asos." If, then, eis la'asos could
overcome an explicit halachah in the Mishna, Rambam and Shulchan Aruch,
it certainly should be a reason to override a tznius matter not even
mentioned in halacha.
R. Aharon conceded the point and withdrew his proposal. IOW, he did not
"overlook the Halachic objections," but agreed that the objection was
not halachic, and hence could bow to the eis la'asos.

From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
> When Rav Aaron Kotler saw that Torah might not succeed in the hinterlands,
> he was maskim to having mixed classes in Day Schools in order to promote
> Torah in locales that otherwise might not have been able to feasibly run
> a day school {how's that for a long run-on sentence?!} IOW, he overlooked
> the Halachic objections because of eis la'asos.
Our VERY chareidi school, in the 50s and 60s had mixed classes for
limudei chol - until age 11.
Our rov at the time [Rav Betzalel Stern z'l - B'tzeil Hachochmo],
received a hetter for this from the Chebeener Rov z'l.
SBA

There was some discussion on Areivim about a husband seeing his wife
while she's nursing, while she's a Niddah.
Somebody mentioned that the Ben Ish Chai is maikil.
(Excuse the order, but that's the order in which I looked this up.)
I would like to point out that in Even HaEzer 21:4 the mechaber paskens
that a man may look at his wife even of she's a niddah.
There's a big tumult in the Nosai Keilim what exactly is meant -
especially since in YD 195:7 the mechaber paskens differently.
The source is a Gemoro in Nedorim (Daf 20.) - which would seem
(superficially, at least) to side with those that allow it, besides
for "between her ankles" - which is always ossur. The source of this
restriction is this very Gemoro. (Raish Lokish explains "between her
ankles" to mean the intimate part of her body that can "see" between
her ankles.)
The Rambam in Isurie Biah 21:4 (which is in Kedusha, not Noshim as
expected) also paskens like the machaber, (actually, the Rambam was first)
- and the Ra'aved mentions the above restriction.
The Tur also brings down the Rambam, and the Beis Yosef clearly says
that since the Gemoro forbade "between the ankles" therefore the rest
of the body is allowed. From here it would appear that his "pareve"
statement in EH sides with the meikilim.
The machmirim explain the Mechaber to mean that one may look at ones
wife when she's dressed, which is why she's allowed to "beautify herself"
even when a Niddah. How this fits with the Gemoro in Nedorim I don't know.
Over to YD 195:7. There the mechaber clearly forbids the husband even
to look at her ankles (taken literally), if she's a Niddah. The Rm"o
adds that one may look at (normally, [I assume]) exposed areas.
This clearly follows the Tur in YD. The BY traces this change to the
Rashba who equates the ankle to all covered places, and infers that
if she's dressed you make look at her, bringing a proof from the above
Rambam. (!)
The Drisha in YD seems to have noticed the above "confusion" and tries
to explain how to fit all the pieces together.
One gets the distinct impression that both in YD and EH the nosei keilim
try to explain away the "kula" of the Gemoro in Nedorim, brought down
in the Rambam and in EH, in favour of the more stringent psak in YD.
Why this is so, I have not yet understood, as the psak in EH can be
traced back through the BY, Tur, Rambam all the way to Raish Lokish in
Nedorim. The psak in YD is harder to trace to its roots.
Any ideas?
- Danny. (Not a Poseik, not a Rabbi and not even a Kollel-man.)

I must apologize for having answered, without thinking, RChaim Markowitz's
question of how to reconcile the din that a sakin shel chol is kasher
b'diavad for sh'chitah, with the din of avodasan m'chanchasan, which
would automatically make it a kli shareis.
The answer is that avodasan m'chanchasan (hereafter AM) does _not_
sanctify a kli chol. What it does is to endow a sanctified utensil with
the property of being a kli shareis. In other words, AM elevates from
k'dushas damim to k'dushas haguf; but it does not elevate from chol
to kodesh.
That this is so is obvious from the din that kabalas hadam in a kli chol
renders a korban pasul. If AM makes a kli chol kodesh, this din could
never apply.
Indeed, the Ritva cited by RCM, and the g'mara to which it refers, prove
the point. The mishna in Yoma 39a states that the kalpi used to determine
the s'irim laShem and la'azazel was a kli chol. The g'mara asks why not
a kli kodesh, and answers that it would then be a wooden kli shareis,
and we do not make wooden klei shareis. The Ritva asks how it would
become a kli shareis, since the act of drawing lots is not avodah, and
answers that since the only function of the kalpi is for drawing lots,
that suffices for the principle of AM to apply even though, strictly
speaking, it is not an avodah. The point is, though, that it would apply
_only if the kli were kadosh to begin with_. Because we use a kli chol,
it does not become a kli shareis.
EMT

<< ... [He got that info from a book about women in Talmud]>>
You were doing fine until the last sentence. The condition I placed on
the question was that it be done off the top of one's (or one's husband's)
head, without recourse to encyclopediae or computer searches.
Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> You were doing fine until the last sentence. The condition I placed on
> the question was that it be done off the top of one's (or one's husband's)
> head, without recourse to encyclopediae or computer searches.
I know. But when I asked him, all he had at the top of his head were
the same two names I had at the top of mine, Rachel and Bruriah. So we
cheated. :- )

R S Goldstein wrote:
> In mitzvos as well as aveiros, the ChL in Shaar HaBitachon ch. 4
> asserts that all actions require help from Above. Just like a mitzva
> which is actually performed is a greater mitzva than merely
> unsuccessfully trying; so too an aveira which is actualized is a
> greater sin than one merely contemplated. Yet, in spite of the
> contrast in reward, a person may only attempt to act for without
> Divine assistance nothing occurs.
WADR, you're restating the part I have a problem on, not proving an
answer.
To take a different approach to asking the same question:
The Rambam rejects predestination because it violates the notion of a
Just G-d. Sechar va'onesh is not justice if there is no bechirah.
The ChL presents a subset of the same problem. A portion of sechar
va'onesh has to do with the success or failure of acting on your
decision. And yet, that success or failure is not in your own hands.
Where's the justice?
Also note that he is a pre-Beshtian source for universal HP (as most
people undertand HP).
> RMB
>>I think the basic problem here is in assuming absolutes when the
>> issue is really better measured by degree. The greater the sakanah
>> implied by the teva of the situation, the greater the merit
>> required to be saved from it.
> Here, at least according to ChL, I'm not sure I agree. ChL holds
> that one may continue to live due to a previous gzera and one loses
> mitzva reward. This result seems to me totally independent of the
> level of danger (though, perhaps the loss of zechuyos is relative)
However, I'm suggesting that that's not what "biydei Shamayim" is
about. Many events happen because of many factors. "Biydei" implies
that a single party is in control of all the factors. For the ChL,
that's so true that I can't understand "chutz mitzinim upachim". Nor
the whole concept of din (as above).
But he has some teiretz. Whatever it is, I think keeping the above
definition of "biydei Shamayim" in mind would help.
As for staying away from meqomos saqanah, it would seem that
REWasserman regards this as a case of trying to avoid "megalgelim
chovah al yedei chayav".
> RMB
>>Thus the tanna's "Hakol biydei Shamayim chutz mitzinim upachin".
>>(Which I'm not sure is the same shitah as the one about "chutz
>> miyir'as Shamayim". Perhaps we aren't supposed to make the two
>> fit.)
> See Tos. which does make them fit.
But would the ChL say we're supposed to make them fit? One is within
his realm of bechirah, the other not. Yir'as Shamayim is not an action,
therefore even the ChL's position fits with it.
-mi
--
Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905 It is two who look in the same direction.

R Sholom Simon wrote:
> But my main question is this: in the Mishna, the dissenting opinion
> is R Yehuda; and in the Gemara the name is replaced by R Meir.
R' Yehudah wrote the mishnah, and yet stam mishnah keR' Me'ir. R' Me'ir
was R' Yehudah's rebbe. It's therefore totally unsurprising that Rebbe
tends to assume his position is halakhah. I'm not too sure how much of
a real difference the change of nusach is.
While on the subject of Rebbe's shalshelet hamesorah...
Perhaps the mishnah can be viewed as the culmination of the medrashei
halakhah of beis Rabbi Aqiva. The yeshivos R' Aqiva (he of the 19 rules of
derashah) and R' Yishma'el (with 13) each had their different collections
of medrashei halakhah. (Although somehow most published copies of the
"Sifrei" include devei R' Yishmael on Bamidbar and devei R' Aqiva on
Devarim, as though the common name means anything.)
R' Aqiva's system of derashah involved ribui umi'ut, and the specific
use of words. R' Yishma'el, with his "dibra Torah belashon benei adam",
used kelal uperat and the meanings of phrases. R' Aqiva saw derashah as
being rules based on syntax, R' Yishma'el on semantics.
R' Aqiva taught R' Meir who taught Rebbe. In a way, the acceptance of
the Mishnah was a choice of R' Aqiva's system over R' Yishma'el's.
-mi
--
Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905 It is two who look in the same direction.

R Akiva Miller wrote:
> Or even beyond that, I think I need to learn more about the "Taamei
> HaMitzvos" of gerus in general. For example, I know that the Chumash
> speaks about gerim in many places, but I haven't the foggiest idea
> of which psukim prescribe the process used to acheive that status.
> Can anyone offer some pointers? Thanks.
You seem to switch here between a discussion of ta'am hamitzvah and
finding a maqor in the pasuq. (We once discussed on Avodah various
attitudes toward what "ta'am hamitzvah" is. Contrast the Chinuch with
RSRH or RYBS's positions.) They both answer "why?" but the why of
maqor us a very different question than one of ta'am. If nothing else,
the gemara often addresses one, and rarely if ever the other.
As for the maqor, it's from ma'amad har Sinai. See Rashi (sham).
-mi
--
Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905 It is two who look in the same direction.

RML:
> R. Y.B.Soloveitchik explained that Jews are the only nation in
> existence; all others are referred to as "mishpachos ho'adoma". In a
> family or tribe, for example, belonging to a shevet or kohen, levi
> etc, is determined by the father. Ditto for before Matan Torah. Once
> a nation was formed, the chidush of the derivation in Kiddushin is
> that we have becoem a nation and belonging depends on the mother....
RYBS seems to say the lashon am/ummah applies only to us, but I think
the counterexamples already brought are sufficient to wonder what he
meant. BTW, from tefillah, "Ata bachartanu mikol ha'amim" doesn't work
if there are no other amim.
But aside from the language problem is the conceptual one. There are
70 parim of mussaf for Sukkos which are keneged the 70 amim (aside:
note chazal's lashon!) and one on Shemini Atzeres keneged us. However,
if the 70 nations are parallel to the shevatim in the hierarchy of
societal organization, why aren't there 12 parim on SA?
-mi
--
Micha Berger "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905 It is two who look in the same direction.